Consolidation ; An account of parties in the United States, from the convention of 1787, to the present period

r*l

ii

CONSOLIDATION.

AN

ACCOUNT OF PARTIES

IN THE

FROM THE

CONVENTION OF 1787,

TO THE

PRESENT PERIOD.

frThe authority of constitutions over governments, and of the so-*
vereignty ofthe people over constitutions, are truths which
ere at all times necessary to be kept in mind,
and at no time perhaps more neces¬
sary than at the present.”

COLUMBIA, S. C.

PRINTED BY BLACK Si SWEENY.

1824*

«

i

4

*

II

*

CONSOLIDATION.

PREFACE.

W hat is meant by Consolidation? What are the distinctive characters of
the federal and anti-federal parties? Many persons use the words without
nny accurate ideas annexed to them. To throyr some li^ht on the subject, I
have drawn up a brief history of the two parties, which I submit to the reader’s
consideration; assuring him that, however I differ from the politicians who have
been, and usually are, called Federalists, I concede the same right to them that
I take to myself. I firmly believe the majority of that party are as intelligent,
as honest, and as patriotic as their opponents; and that the ultimate good of the
country is the object of both. The mode of pursuing it makes the difference in
Opinion, and in conduct.

The following is the statement of an Anti-Federalist; who believes it to be
true, and submits it to the consideration of his fellow citizens. He disapproves
of the measures, but gives full credit to the motives of those who differ from
him. The tribunal of the public is the proper court of appeal.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

We, the Representatives of the United States, in general Congress assembled,
* * '* do solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and

of right ought to be free, sovereign, and independent states: and, that as free and
independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract
alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independ¬
ent states may of right do. 1776. _

This language was adopted by the confederation of 1777, which called itself
the United States of America; and which declares that each state retains its so¬
vereignty; adopting as the end and design of their meeting, “the common de¬
fence and general welfare” of the states thus united. The proceedings of the
-confederation of 1777, were not to be valid till they were confirmed by the se¬
veral legislatures of all the United States. The probability that this might not
be finally obtained to an instrument containing so many provisions, occasioned
the subsequent agreement in 1787, that the constitution then adopted should be
Valid, when ratified by nine out of the thirteen United States.

In each of these cases, the confederation of 1777, and the convention of
1787, consisted of delegates or representatives, not from the people of the United
States, but from the several and respective states, in their capacity of states, free,
sovereign, and independent of each other, as of all the rest of the world. The
people of the respective states chose that this should be the mode of transacting
the business of the confederation, and they acceded to it when finished. Had
they chosen to send representatives in their character of the people of the
tJ. States, or of North America, or of the heretofore British Colonies, they might
have done so; bat they directed, or permitted their state representatives to send

delegates representing each separate, sovereign, and independent state; and to
ratify the constitution thus considered, framed, and adopted, in their character
as representatives of states, and not as representatives ofthe people. This mode
of transacting the business, throughout the whole period of meeting and debate
w as, and ever since has been, acceded to by the people.

The independence and separate sovereignty of each state of the Union, there¬
fore, never wras at any moment conceded, or in any manner or degree renounced.
The confederated states consented that this sovereignty should not be exercised
on the objects committed exclusively to the federal government by the constitu¬
tion of 1787. These objects are separately stated, defined, and limited by the
constitution: many powers and objects proposed during the debates on the con¬
stitution, were rejected; and finally, by the tenth article of the amendments to
the constitution, it is declared, that “The powers not delegated to the United
“States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the
“states respectively, or to the people.” Demonstrating beyoild all doubt, that the
constitution ofthe United States wasan instrument conveyingspecific, expressed*,
and limited powers, and those only: that the federal government was a creature
of the several independent states that consented to it; and that so far from be¬
ing sovereign, independent, and un Control able, it was originally created, is now
kept in force, and may be altered, limited, controlled, or annulled, at the will of
the several independent states or sovereignties, who united to give it existence

All this agrees with the plain and obvious meaning of the state instructions-
to the deputies from the twelve states who met in Philadelphia to form the con¬
stitution of the United States; and particularly with the language of South Ca¬
rolina, whose delegates were instructed to meet on that occasion, and “devise
“such alterations as may be thought necessary to render the federal constitution
“entirely adequate to the actual situation and future good government of the
“confederated states.” None of the credentials contained a word of a national
government, or national Union. This delegation of state, (not national), repre*
sentatives, met and Was organized at Philadelphia, on the 29th of May, 1787*
There were at that time three distinct parties in the delegation, as we learn from
the propositions actually made and debated, in Mr. Justice Yate's account of
their proceedings, and the notes taken and published by Mr. Luther Martin, of
Baltimore, which are the only authentic documents of the proceedings of that
assembly now extant; Major Jackson’s, and Mr. Madison’s notes will probably be
published after their decease. Many accounts and anecdotes might be obtained from
private recollections, but they do not exist to the public. Lloyd’s Congressional
Register embraces an early period of congressional debates after the constitution
Wms adopted. Indeed, so fearful were the members of that federal delegation
of their proceedings and designs alarming the people, who were at first the ma¬
jority, particularly the Consolidation party, that “the members were prohibited
“even from taking copies of resolutions on which the convention were deliberat¬
ing, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and
“obtaining a vote of permission for that purpose.” Martin’s Secret Proceedings
vf the Convent ion, p. 12.

The three parties were these:

1. One whose object was, to abolish and annihilate all state governments,
and to bring forward one general government over this extensive continent, of
a monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. The character¬
istic expression and countersign of this party was, “national.” The leaders of
this party were Col. Hamilton, whose plan of government to this purpose, was
read and proposed by him, in convention, on th© 18th Juno. It was too coer-
fcive> and did not succeed. Mr. Randolph, Mr. Pierce Butler, Mr. Governeur
Morris, Mr. Charles Pinckney, Mr. Madison, were in favor of establishing a
NATIONAL government in lieu of a federal union; of giving to this government
supreme power; and of annulling every state law that interfered with the acts of
the supreme and paramount general government; not much differing from Col.
Hamilton’s proposal, which converted the several states into provinces. The
leading opponents of this plan, and the defenders of state rights, were Mr. John
Dickinson, author of the Farmer’s Letters, and Mr. Patterson. The consolida¬
tion members were at first, six out of eight. Mr. Dickinson’s plan of a federal
government was rejected the day after Col. Hamilton’s project was read, vis*
June 19th. His party was characterised by the word “FEDERAL,”

8

By this lime eleven states had appeared, and the federal, Or state party, had
tiiicreased to five; the consolidation, or national party, remaining six. The de¬
puties from New Hampshire came in on June 23d. The great question came to
issue on June 25th, when it was proposed and seconded, to erase the term INA-
TlOiNAL, and to substitute the word, UNITED STATES, which passed in the
affirmative: this ended the struggle between (lie party of Col. Hamilton, of
Messrs. Randolph, Butler, Morris, Pinckney and Madison,-— and that of Mr. John
Dickinson and his adherents, w ho were in favor of the preservation of state in¬
dependence, Slate sovereignty, and state rights, in every case not specifically and
clearly conceded in the instrument then under debate, called the Constitution.

The second jrarty did not advocate the abolition of state sovereignty, or
state rights; but they w ished to establish such a system as wTould give their own
states some preponderance. This party and the first coalesced for the most part.

The third pally consisted of the real friends of a federal, not a national con¬
solidated government; to be instituted as the creature of the several states, act¬
ing in their sovereign and independent characters; and conceding so much pow¬
er, and no more, as was necessary' to promote -the general welfare of this union
of states: expressing, limiting, and defining the specific pow ers so conceded, as
cautiously as the occasion seemed to require.

We have seen that this .party, (until about the year 1700, called the Federal
party,) succeeded on the 25th of June. The term national, the watchw ord of
the party in favor of consolidation, was therefore relinquished, in all the subse¬
quent proceedings of the convention. On the 18th of August it w as proposed to
empow er the legislature of the United States, to grant charters of incorporation
in cases w here the public good may require them, and the authority of a single
state may' be incompetent; and to establish an university. These, with some-
other similar propositions, made by the consolidation party, wrere referred to a
committee which had been raised on 23d June. The two propositions above
mentioned, were debated, and finally negatived on the 14th September. Afford¬
ing a full and decisive proof, that the powers conceded to Congress are specific,
limited, enumerated powers; that do not emanate as of course from any abstract
principle of what the public good may require; but from the deliberate conces¬
sions and absolute will of the sovereign and independent states, w ho then met
in convention to define and declare how many', and w7hat pow'ers wer e required
by the public good. If Congress acts upon this vague and comprehensive prin¬
ciple of the general welfare, it assumes a power not delegated; and it usurps the
authority of the convention, by' whose will it w?as created. The object of the
convention wTas to ascertain tv hat kind and degree of authority the public good
actually required to be delegated to congress. The members of that convention
met for that purpose, and for that purpose only'; they deliberated, they settled,
and enacted whatever they thought necessary for that purpose, and they com¬
mitted to congress no part of their owm peculiar power. If congress do exercise
the authority' of a convention, it is exercised by usurpation: and whether it.be
done by the ingenious subterfuge of implication and construction — by manage¬
ment and contrivance — in any' covert and indirect way'— or openly', boldly, and *
directly, it is in either case a fraud on the community. Congress wras created
and appointed, not as a supreme, but subordinate authority'; to put in force the
powers committed to its charge by the constitution— not to delegate at its own
will and pleasure new powers to itself, unknowm to, unthought of, unexpressed,
and unsanctioned by the framers of that instrument — a body of men certainly'
paramount in authority to congress, which owes its pow ers, properties, and ex¬
istence to that convention.

The secrecy enjoined on the members of the convention at the early period
of their meeting, and when the national, or consolidation party, were six to tw o,
w’asa most suspicious circumstance. For who w'ould desire to keep the public
in ignorance, but those who wish to take some advantage by means of secrecy?

It is clear that the propositions made in the early part of that convention, w ere
deemed unpopular by the proposers, or their conduct would have challenged
public inquiry, instead of shrinking from it. For all these facts, and the cor¬
rectness of the preceding statement, I appeal to the minutes of that convention
published by Judge Yates, the notes Taken by Mr. Luther Martin, and the re¬
marks founded on them by' the late John Taylor, of Caroline, in his new' view's
of the constitution, Col. Hamilton and Mr. Madison, notwithstanding their

4

dissonance, very honorably signed the constitution. Mr. Randolph took time for
the purpose. Congress first met in March, 1789. Before this, the series of papers
called the Federalist was published, written chiefly by Col. Hamilton, partly by
Mr. Madison, and partly by Mr. John Jay; for the purpose of reconciling the
people to the new constitution which the convention had framed in 1787. As
we might expect, the party distinctions that took place in the convention are
rather concealed than brought into view in that work It was a conciliatory
publication, and the motives of the authors did them honor. But it is ridiculous
to cite them as authority for the real views of the prevailing party; to which Col.
Hamilton and Mr. Madison did not at that time cordially accede. After this pe¬
riod, the adherents of Col. Hamilton and the consolidation party gradually as¬
sumed the denomination of federalists, hitherto applied with great propriety to
their opponents: and the real “federalists,” the supporters of the independence of
the respective states that Form our federal union, have been at different times
since, brandedwiththeappellationof anti-federalists, jacobins, republicans, demo--
crats, andradicals. Of the fraternity of politicians thus variously designated by the.
ingenious maneuvering of the federal leaders, who well knew the force and value
of a nickname, the writer of these pages requests to be considered as a member:
stating it as an historical fact, within the knowledge of every man conversant with
the history and progress of our republican government, that the distinctive cha¬
racter of the two great leading parties in the United States, usually known as
Federalists and Democrats, are these.

The Federalists approving rather of an American Nation, than of the United
States; of a consolidated and single, than a limited and federal government — are
desirous of extending the power and authority of the executive, legislative and
judicial branches of that government: of encreasing the military and naval es¬
tablishments of the U. States: of augmentingthe salaries, the rank and popular esti¬
mation of all public functionaries: and of putting the United States into a situa¬
tion to take part, if necessary, in European politics, and uf making them a great
and energetic nation, one and indivisible. Hence they would repress the inter¬
ference, and depress the influence of state authorities, arid keep state rights and
pretensions in subordination to the powers of the general government. Hence
also, they are advocates for the extension of the general, or what is now called
federal authority, by any means of implication and construction, rather than by
an appeal to the states under the prescribed form of an amendment of the con¬
stitution; their policy being to keep state interference as much as possible out of
view, iu theory and in practice. Hence also, the absolute and dangerous con¬
trol exercised by the Supreme Court of the United States, over state laws, and
state decisions. Hence also, the power formerly assumed by this party whefi
the reins of government were in their hands, of limiting the rights of the people,
and checking the inconvenient practice of free discussion by alien and sedition
laws. Hence also, their dislike, not merely to the horrid practices to which the
French people were driven or tempted during the French Revolution, but also
to the principles of that revolution; and their predilection for the British govern¬
ment and its forms. Hence also, some of the prominent federalists were, and still
are, admirers of a limited monarchy; and advocates of course, for Col. Hamil¬
ton’s energetic plan of government; with a President and Senate eligible during
good behavior, an absolute veto overall state proceedings, and a President over
each state, to be appointed by the general government. This party, however,
neither is, or was numerous; the far greater portion of federalists being real
friends to a republican fdrm of government, but with a tendency to consolidation
as the leading trait in it: the whole of theirpolicy tending to establish one consoli¬
dated national government, under the control of one system of authority, instead
of a mere confederation of separate states, delegating expressed and limited
powers, for expressed and limited purposes.* The origin of modern federalism^
the distinctive character of the party in its commencement and in its progress,,
was, consolidation of the states under one government, paramount in all respects;
and to this object all their proposals lead. For want of an accurate knowledge
of the history of parties in our Republic, and the leading objects of the two great

* “It is high time, said Mr. Fenno, {government printer during the reign of
Mr. J. Adams,) that we should get rid of this huge sow with her farrow of pigs:"—
alluding to the general government and the thirteen states

4

*

^divisions, many of the republicans have been tempted to coincide with federal
politics, and many of the federalists are found in the ranks of their usual oppo¬
nents. Indeed party divisions are productive of consequences so unpleasant,
that good men of all sides are desirous of forgetting and oi dropping political dif¬
ferences; especially when federalists and republicans, the more they see of each,
other in common society, the more they are inclined to respect each others
motives, and to approve of eacii others general conduct; the public good being
indubitably the object of the great majority of both parties. Still it is the duty
of a good man, wheGier of the one party or of the other, to adopt those political
measures, and to support that class of public men, whose general opinions and
line of conduct tend to advance the public welfare, according to the leading
principles which he deems best calculated to promote it. These leading princi¬
ples will, on examination, be found to be a single consolidated national govern-:
■merit, at the expense of state sovereignty; or <v federal government, with powers
strictly limited, under the authority delegated by independent stales; and to oe al¬
tered and amended by an appeal to them , and in no other way.

In examining therefore the character and conduct of public men, we must
aopiy this test to their doctrines and practices. So far as they tend to exalt and
increase the character, the powers, and the patronage of the general govern*
rnent, at the expense or beyond the control of, and without appealing to the state
governments, they bear clearly the features and physiognomy of federalism,
whoever be the proposer, or whatever may be his professions.

The Jinii- Federalist i Republican, Democrat, Radical, (quocunque nomine,
yaudes) is ot opinion, that as history clearly shews the tendency of all power to
exceed its proper limits, no more power should in any case be delegated, than the
circumstances imperiously require, to produce the good intended. That the
holders of all power should be responsible for the use of it, to those who gave
it. That if any excess be excusable on either side, it is better to concede ra¬
ther too little than too much, as it is much more easy to .add than diminish.
They are of opinion, that the people and the state governments of this country
never meant to institute a magnificent, imposing, expensive, national govern¬
ment, with extensive powers, and high prerogatives, calculated to control or
prostrate the quiet, unpretending, cheap and salutary governments of the se¬
parate states — but a government with so much power and no more, as might be
necessary to manage the political transactions of common and general interest.
In which each and every state had the same common concern; interfering with
state authorities as little as possible. That the more simple the apparatus, the
fewer the officers ot government, and the less they required state rights to be
conceded, the better. Thai if power sufficient be not conceded, it ought not to
be boldly seized by direct usurpation, or clandestinely obtained by taking ad¬
vantage of verbal ambiguity, by implication and construction, but applied for by
submitting the case under the constitutional form of an amendment, to the legis¬
latures of the respective states; this being the mode of proceeding specially de¬
signated by the framers of our constitution, to meet the case. They are of opinion,
that altho’ parsimony be one tiling and frugality another, the cheapest govern¬
ment is the best government, if it answer the purpose in other respects. They
particularly object to expensive standing armies, and even to a great extent of
naval power in time of pence,* not that these institutions should be reduced to
insignificance, but kept under cautious control. They hold, that the public
character and conduct, of all public men and public bodies, from the President
to a Tide Waiter, is fair subject for temperate remark; that nothing brings a
government so surely into contempt as Us dread of discussion and examination;
and that in all such cases the verdict on trial, ought to be with the jury on the
law and on the tact, uncontrolled by the court. They adhere to the principles
oPpublic liberty, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and in the
Federal Constitution, particularly claiming a free press, untrammelled by any
previous restriction, and extending to every subject of human investigation, as

(*) Naval power. The principle of the democratic party, was , not to keep
up such a military or naval establishment as might tempt us into any contest that
could be prudently avoided. But the circumstances of Europe, have shewn, that
ice cannot avoid a naval establishment op, a more extended scale , than was cour
ftmplaicd at the comriiencenknt of Jefferson's administration..

6

ike dearest and most valuable characteristic .of a truly republican government/.

For my own part, I go farther, and reviewing the events of the last thirty
years, l am decidedly of opinion, that the republican party has forgotten, in great
part, the principles that originally characterized it; and they have permitted
and acquiesced in one encroachment after another, till the power of the Presi¬
dent of the United States, the power of the Congress of the United States, and
more than all, the power of the Supreme Court of the United States (the most
dangerous body in the Union) HAS INCREASED, IS INCREASING, ANI>
OUGHT TO BE DIMINISHED. But on the present occasion, I must abstain
from the detailed investigation that would establish my opinion; an opinion,
however, which no man, who has observed the progress of our government as
long and as anxiously as I have done, will be inclined to deny.

The former opposers of a federal and advocates of a national govern¬
ment, now seized upon the name by which the series of essays was designated,
containing a defence of the constitution of 1787, and an exposition of the prin¬
ciples on which it was founded. An exposition, not likely to be in all respects
accurate and authentic, when made by gentlemen, who had opposed its leading
features and principle; and who were induced to defend it, from the truly
honorable and disinterested motive of promoting obedience and acquiescence
in what had been settled upon the best and most deliberate views that could be
taken of a very difficult and complicated subject. Mr. Madison, I believe,,
gradually changed his views of a national government, and came round to the
sentiments of the majority of the republican leaders of his own state. Colonel
Hamilton and Mr. John Jay, continued of the “ national party,” who, from
1788 to 1790, gradually assumed their modern appellation of FEDERALISTS.
In all Col. Hamilton’s papers, in the “ Federalist,” the expression national go¬
vernment is seduously preserved; and he expressly declares, in number thirty-
three, that the principal aim of that series of papers was to inculcate the dan¬
ger which threatens our political welfare from the encroachments of the state
governments. To which he might have added, the labored justification of the
extended powers given to the national government, in the formation of treaties,,
the regulation of commerce, the imposition of taxes, and the maintenance of a
standing army and navy. To the equality of power among the states he was
strenuously opposed.

Mr. Madison, in numbers forty-five and forty-six, is of the same opinion as
Col. Hamilton as to the power and influence of the state governments. These
were wise and honest men, but I think experience has shewn that they were
bad prophets. The publication called the Federalist, is of a complexion truly
federal, in flic modern sense of that word; but it did much good at the time, and
strongly tended to reconcile the people to a constitution which contains, after all,
but one capital defect, viz: the want of a clause appointing a periodical revision
ef it every thirty years. See numbers forty-nine and fifty of the “Federalist.”
The Pennsylvania Council of Censors, had an admirable effect, and I think
^hould never have been dropped

General Washington, whose services to the United States, were probably
jnore than any man had ever rendered to a nation, and whose motives and in¬
tentions were out of the reach of suspicion, manifestly leaned toward a strong exe¬
cutive. All his officers of government, Col. Hamilton at their head, were more,
or less of the same opinion, and of the national party. The military habits and
character of Genera! Washington, had probably no small share in giving this bias,
to his opinions, and the superior talents of Col. Hamilton, added weight to the
party. Nor is it any wonder that a President should be in favor of a strong
executive, or that persons in power should be inclined to extend their authority.
The Federalists, as they were now calledy became therefore, the prevailing, the
fashionable party. The funding system, the manufacturing and tariff system v
were introduced by Col. Hamilton, and with the treaty of commerce with Great
Britain, were carried successfully against the opposition of the republican, de¬
mocratic, or (now) anti-fcderal party. Every man pretending to good society,,
was expected to be of federal politics, and the opposition was considered as chief¬
ly confined to the ignorant and turbulent mass of the people. The excise upon
whiskey, and the termination of that ill-judged insurrection, gave the federalist’s
(or court party, as they were sometimes called) a decided pre-eminence over
their opponents; possessing, as the federalists certainly did, in a considerable de--

7

<£fee, the countenance and confidence of the first man jn the nation, General
Washington. The banking interest, the mercantile importing interest, the mili¬
tary, all the dependants on government, and all those who sought to be such^
were decidedly of the same party! which had undoubted controul from Virginia
northward. Great force also was given to anti-republican tendencies, by the ex¬
cesses consequent on the breaking out of the French revolution. These excess¬
es produced in many, an abhorrence for the principles of that revolution, as if
they were diiferentfrom our own, and as if the excesses of the exasperated and
misguided mob of the Fauxbourgs, were the necessary consequences of an op¬
position to the execrable tyranny, political and clerical, by which that natiofi
had been so long degraded and weighed down. The federal party made a skil¬
ful use of these circumstances; they excited to a very great degree a hatred
against French principles, and against the nation itself; and brought about a strong
inclination to admire, to praise, and to imitate the monarchical forms and princi¬
ples of the British government. The republicans, democrats, or anti-federalistV
were now put under the ban of all fashionable society, and every where de¬
nounced as jacobins. By degrees the principles of our own revolution, and our!
separation from Great Britain, were attacked, and every man who did not pro¬
fess to admire the British constitution was regarded as an enemy to our own ex¬
isting government, and beyond doubt, a disorganize!- and a jacobin. The great
mass of the people, however, felt that all this was wrong: they knew that onr own
revolution, and the French revolution, arose from similar causes, and were based
on similar doctrines. They revolted at the notion of giving preference to the
monarchical principles aud forms of Great Britain, tvhicli in their operation had
forced upon this country the American Revolution; and although the men of su¬
perior situation, and of compartive wealth, soon after the accession of President
Adams, began to exclaim without ceasing, and abuse without discrimination, all
revolutionary principles as jacobinical, the people of America thought otherwise,
and felt otherwise. But the violence of the federal party about this time, aided
by the political character and complexion of the existing government undo*'
General Washington’s successor, and by their coincidence with British Mercan¬
tile Agents, Importers, and their numerous connections, among retailers indebt¬
ed to them, gave them in the great cities, an undoubted predominance; and pro¬
duced that state t>f things about two years after the retirement of General Wash¬
ington, which was not improperly, or inappropriately denominated, the reign of
terror^ The real republicans who are now living, and are old enough to remem¬
ber tire state of parties on the retirement of General Washington, and the ad¬
ministration of Mr. John Adams, knov> the expression was well applied, and that
this is not a false and fanciful, but a fair and faithful representation of the puhlk;
feelings of that day, and I can with perfect safety appeal to them, for the hon¬
esty and accuracy of this sketch. The conduct of a Mr. Fitzhugh, to General
Sumter, in the Theatre, at Philadelphia, in the summer of 1798, may he taken as
a sample.

On the retirement of General Washington, the federal party put in Mr. John
Adams as President. This gentleman was known to be ultra federalist: the ad¬
vocate of a strong executive, in which no other branch should have any partici¬
pation. (*) He had written a defence of the American Constitution, as the title
of his book imports, but a defence of the British Constitution in reality. It w as
a thing of checks and balances, with monarchy as an essential part; in w’hich
the admiration of the writer for the British system wras glaring. Mr. Adams was
deemed a fit person to carry on the view s of the federal party; and w as generally
understood to have been chosen by the influential men of that party, because he
was likely to be led by Col. Hamilton and his adherents. Col. Hamilton is now
dead. The animosities of party as to him, are gone by. I did not, and do no£

(*) John Langdon, senator from New- Hampshire, and afterwards Governor
of that state, in a letter to Samuel Ringold, esq. dated, October 1( )th, 1800, declar¬
ed, that Mr. John Adams in his presence, expressed a hope or expectation to see
the day, when Mr. J. Taylor, of Caroline, and Mr. Giles, (to whom he was then
speaking,) would be convinced, that the people of America , tvould not be happy
without an hereditary chief magistrate and senate , or at least, for life.

Mr. Taylor, on the trial of Calender, attended in court and was morn, ready
fo prove this fact: hat Judge Chase would not permit him to give it m testimony,

8

by him. Of Mr. Timothy Picker
ing, and the other minor officers of government, I know nothing that can be?
said in commendation; they were entitled to no praise but for zeal i» support of

their party.

tore with France, and he was the devoted admirer of every thing British. The-
alien law, giving power to the President to banish at his pleasure, any foreigner.

whether alien friend, or alien enemy, whom he deemed obnoxious; and the se-
r, checking all freedom of discussion, and protecting all political de-

for

dition law

linqjuency from investigation any where but within tile walls of congress
biding the people to speak or to write in disapprobation of the conduct of their
rulers — the violence of the federal judges in putting that law in force— the ex¬
clusion from office of every description, of all persons whose politics were not'
ultra federal, (a measure advocated as equally wise and necessary by every fe-*
deral representative in congress, in full debate) — the gross and fulsome adula¬
tion that disgraced the addresses to Mr. Adams, and his corresponding replies,
equally firrogant and bombastic, at length completely disgusted the sober part
of the nation, Pnd prepared the way for that revolution in public opinion, which
ultimately took place. It w«3 manifest that all the barriers of republican go¬
vernment were to be thrown down— that state rights were to be trampled on — -
that all opposition was to be suppressed by violence — that the federal judiciary
\vas expected to be the mere instruments of governmental vengeance — that
doubt and hesitation about the measures of -government were to be treated in all
companies, as disaffection and sedition, and the spirit of the nation to be bro¬
ken down. Mr. Pickering, (*) as secretary of state, exhibited in his communi¬
cations, an overbearing insolence of language, which has no parallel but in the
violence of the present secretary of state, in his communications with Spain.
These gentlemen forgot that all attempts at fine writing on grave subjects, and
all intemperance of language on any subject, are marks of an inferior character,
producing no effect but ridicule or irritation, and always operate as obstacles
to conviction. The essential character of dignity of mind, is mildness, clear¬
ness, and simplicity, in acting, in speaking, in writing. Colonel Hamilton
e-ould understand tins; but it would be a sentiment unintelligible to Mr. John
Adams, or Mr. Pickering.

Fortunately, the necessities of government required an additional revenue,
and the system of assessed taxes was resorted to, with a host of assessors, in¬
spectors, supervisors, receivers, and collectors, in the pay and under the con-
troul of government, throughout the Union. The people disliked direct taxes
of all kinds, and on whatever pretence. They preferred that mode of taxatioik
which would put into every man’s power, and remit to his own discretion, how
much he would pay, by using or abstaining from the article on which an impost
was levied. The murmurs of the agriculturists therefore, became loud and
general.

About this time a quarrel arose in the administration. Mr. John Adams had
revolted at the guidance and controul of Colonel Hamilton and Mr. Pickering..
Indeed, the latter gentleman was Mr. Adam«’ equal in no respect but petulence,.
violence, and overbearing — a man of small information and great vanity. I re¬
fer in proof, to his communications and despatches on French affairs in parti¬
cular. No wonder Mr. Adams felt disgust at the imperious manner of a person

u This gentleman is said io be a leading member of the Essex Junto , a club
of n'lra-politicians strongly suspected of being far more evoted to the institutions,
of Great Britain than of their own country. T>ie Essex Junto begat the Hart-
ford Convention „, which Mr. Otis, of Massachusetts, has lately attempted to defend;-
but he has completely failed in that attempt to wash the Blackamoor white ,

so HI qualified toTTirec't. Be the causes what they may, the President threw o$
all deference for the opinions of Col. Hamilton, Mr. Pickering, and their triends;
he dismissed Pickering and M; Henry from office, and determined to act for
himselt. Forsaken by his party; the object of profound dislike to the whole
body of republicans, he was compelled to quit the presidential chair, and re-*
tire to a private station. His affecting afterward, to be an anti-federalist and re¬
publican, and his lately published letters to Mr. Cunningham, have not enabled
him to regain one particle of his lost reputation: nor ha3 Colonel Pickering’s
attack upon him produced any other effect than to shew, that however irritable
and ill tempered Mr. Adams maybe, Col. Pickaring is not less so. Whatevep
bad qualities, politically, these gentlemen may respectively possess, it must
at least be allowed that they merit Dr. S. Johnson’s commendation of being
** good haters .”

During General Washington’s administration three questions arose, which
called forth and brought into discussion the distinctive doctrine of the federal
party, viz. That congress ought to be considered as a national legislature, em¬
powered to enact, and carry into effect all objects which in the opinion of that
body, were expedient to the general welfare, and to make the necessary ap¬
propriations for the purpose.

The three points to which I allude, were the proposal to establish a manu¬
facturing system: the proposal to establish a Nationaf Bank: and the discussions
on the treaty-making power.

Col. Hamilton, as secretary of state, made a report to congress in favor of
the' manufacturing system, on the 5th of December, 1791* in which he insists
(in conformity to the consolidating notions which he never relinquished, even
in his defence of our present federal constitution) “ that it belongs to the discre*
tion of the national legislature to pronounce upon the subjects which concern
the GENERAL WELFARE, and for which under that description, an appro¬
priation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room fof
a doubt, that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agricul¬
ture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national
Councils, as far as regards an appropriation of money.”

From this passage, it is evident that Mr. John Quincy Adams, a thorough¬
going pupil of the same school; is mistaken in supposing that he was the original
propagator of this doctrine, which in the polished language, so peculiarly his
own, he insinuates a man must be “ ineffably stupid” to deny.

I should wonder at Col. Hamilton’s venturing this broad assertion, when
he knew that fhe convention, of which he was a member, formally and by ex¬
press vote, refused to give to congress the power to erect a national university,
if I were not well acquainted with the boldness, pertinacity, and decisive
character of Col. Hamilton.

Even in his defence of the present constitution-— the present federative
constitution — in his own publication, the “ Federalist” he never desists from
the national expressions, which were on debate, and by formal vote rejected
in the convention, by which the constitution was framed.

This doctrine was adopted to its full extent, by a committee of congress in
January 1797, the first year of Mr. John Adams’ administration.

This creed of the federalists was discussed, when the question of the United
States' Bank was first agitated. I have not the debates by me, and we labor un¬
der great inconvenience for want of a repository of these most interesting dis-
cussfons. Col. Hamilton’s influence prevailed. This was the first great practi¬
cal inroad on the plain meaning of the constitution*. Col. Hamilton's extended
views of the great elfeet of this powerful machine in aid of his favorite mea-

* Chief Justice Marshall, in his life of Washington, vol. 5, p. 295 to 209,
gives a brief account of this debate (1791) and delineates the characters of the two
great parties in the Union substantially as I have done. He has also given in the
notes to that volume , p. 3, a short account of the arguments used by the opponents
and supporters of the Bank bill. This gentleman is a federalist, with a decided
leaning to the national politics of Col. Alexander Hamilton. Yet, I think it is
impossible to read the plain, unvarnished arguments of the anti-federal minority,
<m the bank question, as Marshall has stated them, and the more labored account of
the reasoning of the rr opponents (notes, p. 6 and 7 without giving a preference

to

gnres, will undoubtedly prove correct. Under sue!) managers, as Mr. Cacvos
and Mr. Biddle, vve have not yet had much to alarm us. But no man can vie w
its progress, and reflect on its power, without being satisfied, that like the ser¬
pent of Aaron's rod, it is destined to swallow up ali the minor establishments of
a similar description. The debate on the treaty-making power, involved the
question of the ultimate concurrence of tiie house of representatives, by means
of their conceding, or refusing the requisite appropriations. The consolidation
question had its secret influence on this debate, which ended without settling
the principle.

The only questions of importance during the administration of Mr..
Madison, which involved the leading doctrines of the two parties was the
bank bill, with the internal improvement clause in 1817, and the establishment
of the present Bank of the United States, the year after. To the bank billot'
1817, a clause was added (I think by Mr. CalhounJ appropriating the gains of
the bank to internal improvements. Mr. Madison gave the bill his decided ne¬
gative, on the ground that congress had no power to legislate on internal im¬
provements. This was March 3, 1817. The national bank was carried through
afterwards by the great talents of Mr. Dallas, one of the ablest men this coun¬
try has seen. Mr. Dallas was led away by his duty as financier, and by liislong
connexion with the great mercantile interests of Philadelphia, with whom a na¬
tional' bank was a favorite measure; or he never would have been the advocate
of that measure himself. But the sanction given to this chartered monopoly, by
a series of decisions implying its constitutionality, rendered by the supreme-
court, made it extremely difficult for congress to decide otherwise. So it is:
let in but the giant foot of usurpation, and the whole body of the monster will
soon force its way. Good citizens, accustomed to reflect, have long viewed
With silent horror the portentous progress of the federal judiciary. This body
is now, as from the beginning it has been, the strong right arm of consolidation.
The Judges of that court, are as wise, as learned, and as honest, as any other
Judges constituting any other court. They are men like other men. They are
creatures of the executive: Judges, whose motto is, amp Hare jurisdiclioncm,
toextend their authority; andthey have faithfully pursued it. When have they ever
doubted the constitutionality of an act of congress? And what occasion have they
passed over of deciding on the constitutionality of state laws? They seem to re¬
gard themselves as an insulated body, far above all state authorities, whose
proceedings they have a full right to annul or control. The doctrines of that
court, I regret to say, are fashionable among the members of the bar; and as I
think, have given a federal leaning — a propensity to defend the consolidation
measures, to very many of the best heads of our country.

During the administration of Mr. Monroe, much has passed which the re¬
publican party would be glad to approve, if they could. But the principal feature-
and that which has chiefly elicited these observations, is the renewal of the
SYSTEM OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT. The scruples of this gentleman
on the subject of the Cumberland Road, have subsided; and for reasons and for
motives of very manifest operation, he has become a thorough convert to the
doctrines of his ancient enemies. Mr. Calhoun, I dare say, had little difficulty
In overcoming the doubts of the President, when he set before his eyes the glit¬
tering prospect of ten millions to be distributed in jobs to fortification-contract-

to the intelligible simplicity of the first, over the metaphysical , and wire-drawn
deductions of the federal party on that occasion.

All the difference between Chief Justice Marshall and myself, in our views of
the characters of the two parties is, that he insinuates a design on the part of the
anti-federalists, to encroach on the power of the general government, m favor of
state authorities. I reply — -l.?/. Every political event bearing on the question
from the year 1790, to the present day, has shewn not only that his representation
is not accurate, but that the reverse is: 2 dly. It is manifest lyJmpOssibte for the
slates thus to encroach, because the powers conceded, are fully expressed and can¬
not be recalled while the present constitution is in force: 3 dly. The quibbles of
■implication and construction have given rise to the usurpation of power on the part
of the general government, which can never arise in favor of state pretensions?
and have never, indeed, in any instance, been set up. I conclude, therefore, the
danger is all one way, and experience shews it to be so.

14

tiVi; -and as much in the construction of roads and canals throughout every part
of the union, except in those states which chiefly contribute to supply the funds,
Tnese splendid projects ot Mr. Calhoun, coincided also with Mr. Monroe’s favorite
plan ol fortifications on every part of our coast, requiring of necessity a consi¬
derable increase ol the standing army to man them. But the main objects are the
power and patronage — the prodigious influence that the President for the time
being, and the Secretary of War would acquire, by controlling the expenditure
of every cent that would otherwise term a surplus revenue. It is hardly one
time in ten that the ostensible reason of a public proposal is the real one. Let
any man look at Mr. Calhoun’s report on fortifications in which he proposes to
lay out about one million of dollars south, and nine and a half millions north of
the Potomac, and one main object of this project, wiP start up undisguised, and
stare him i n the face. W hen Mr. Jefferson proposed to abolish the internal taxes,
it was not on account of the burthen of taxation from which the people would
be thus relieved, but to take away the executive influence over a host of de¬
pendants, in the pay and under the control of that department. But Mr. J. was
a Radical at that time; and report says he is so still. He well knew the use that
might be made of this executive influence, and he needed it not. Indeed, no
man ought to be President, who does need it; * or who wishes to administer the
fashionable folly of the day, a patronizing government.

In January 1824, Mr. Smith and Mr. Findlay, of the Senate, moved sepa¬
rate resolutions, in substance, that the committee of roads and canals do report
on the expediency of requesting the President to employ a part of the engineer
Corps to ascertain the practicability of uniting the Schuykill and the Delaware,
and the Allegany and the Susquehana, in Pennsylvania. Which on the applica¬
tion of the Pennsylvania delegation to Mr. Calhoun, lias been extended to the
Susquehannah and the Chesapeake; and to several places in the middle, the
north-eastern states, and in Florida; upon pretences and for purposes, not yet,
so far as I know, developed. The application of the Pennsylvania delegation
was cordially received and instantly granted; and Mr. Calhoun, himself has been
lately surveying some of the creeks in the Allegany mountains, no doubt for
some great national object hereafter to be explained. The influence of the
Pennsylvania delegation was to be expected.

This power assumed by congress, to make roads and canals through the
states at their will and pleasure, was regarded as an usurpation by the democrat¬
ic party, who called on their opponents to point out what clause in the constitu¬
tion contained this power expressly, or from what express grant it was derived
by necessary implication.

This was attempted to be done by some,

From the power given to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and
among the several states.

By others for the power given to raise and support armies, to which military
roads were necessary.

By others, from the power given to establish post-offices arid post-roads.

These pretences were so discordant, so manifestly strained, and forced into
the service, and one might say without much danger of departing from truth,
so absurd, that the speeches of Mr. Holmes, of Maine, and Mr. Barbour of Vir¬
ginia, in the senate were triumphant in point of argument.

On the 10th of February, the bill to obtain the necessary plans and estimates
in relation to roads and canals, was carried in the House of Representatives, 115
to 86 — 1.6 members absent. Seven out of 24, from New-York, voted against it:
South-Carolina, voted four and four, one member absent. Among the minor ob¬
jections to this bill, were, 1st. That it contemplated no equitable principle of
expending the public money, neither in any ratio of taxation, ot cr representation.
2d. That the states which had already meritoriously expended their domestic
revenues in public improvements, like New-York and South-Carolina, were for
that very reason to be left out, and their taxes appropriated to supply and
make good the parsimonious or negligent deficiencies of the states who had
done nothing for themselves.

The pretences of deriving this assumed authority on which the bill in question,

* In 1817 C. Calhoun, was aslrcnuous advocate for re-imposing the long

catalogue of internal taxes , abolished by Mr . Jefferson.

Itns based from the military clause, or the regulating commerce clause, on the po^l-
road clause, were seen to be not merely weak, but farcical. Which cl them, tot
instance, will apply to Mr. Calhoun’s frolic to Deep-Creek, on the top ot the
Allegany? Who can read the account of his journey for this purpose with any
gravity? In the House of Representatives a broader position was taken; viz.
That Congress had a right to pass any measure conducive to the general wtljare.
This is the true and only ground which furnishes any thing like a defence of thc^
bill in question, or that can be argued with due seriousness.

Mr. McDuffie’s speech on this occasion, in favor of the bill, comprises every
thing that can be urged in its defence, and was, beyond all doubt, the most able
and eloquent support of that measure which had been heard in either house.

We now come to the broad and antient line of discrimination between the
federal and the republican parties; between the advocates for a consolidated, na¬
tional government, and the defenders of state rights and limited powers. From
the very opening of the debates in the convention of 1787, through every pe¬
riod of political discussion, to the present day, the position taken by the friends
of the internal improvement bill, in the last congress, has been the distinctive,
the characteristic, the exclusively appropriate doctrine of the consolidating or
federal party. For if congress may adopt any measure, or pass any act, which,
to a majority of that body may seem conducive to the general welfare, what can
they not do? Who is to limit them, or where is the limitation? All. the barriers
of the constitution are thrown down; all state rights are prostrated, as of miuor
consideration; all the powers which the convention refused to grant, are claimed
over again as of right; all the conclusions that are deducible from this constitu¬
tion, being a compact for mutual benefit between confederated states, conceding
so much power and no more as was necessary to the purpose of the confedera¬
tion, are at one breath annulled and annihilated.

This was the position taken by Col. Alexander Hamilton, in the debates in
convention: this was the position taken by him in his report on manufactures:
this was- the position assumed by the ultra-federal committee of the House of
Representatives in 1797: no other position is necessary to convert these United
Statesinto one national government, under one hereditary chief, end one heredit¬
ary senate, as Mr. John Adams urged on Messrs. Taylor and Giles. No not one.
The warmest friend of the Holy Alliance, would net desire safer or broader
ground to stand upon. If congress may enact whatever it may deem expedient
for the general welfare, its power is unlimited, absolute, and despotic.

Mr. John Q. Adams, Mr. J. C. Calhoun and hjs partisans, assumed this ground.
The former gentleman has boasted of being the first person to urge it, but he was.
mistaken. The honor belongs to Co!. Alexander Hamilton. The following let¬
ter, however, of Mr. J. Q. Adams, will serve as a proof of his zeal in the cause,
and furnish some elegancies of expression, and samples of moderation in stile,
that may be inserted among the beauties of his diplomatic correspondence.

he opinion of John Quincy Jldams , on the subject of Internal Improvements.

“The question of the power of congress to authorize the making of inter¬
nal Improvements, is, in other words, a question whether the people of this
Union, in forming their common social compact, as avowedly for the purpose of
promoting their general welfare, have performed their w ork in a manner so in¬
effably stupid , as to deny themselves the means of bettering their own condition.
1 have too much respect for the intellect of my country to believe it. The first
object of human association is the improvement of the condition of the asso¬
ciated. Roads and Canals are among the most essential means of improving the
condition of nations; and a people, which should deliberately, by the organiza¬
tion of its authorized power, deprive itself of the faculty of multiplying its own
blessings, would be as wise as a creator w ho should undertake to constitute a
human being without a heart.” — [Ohio Kalional Crisis.

The following are the remarks of the Richmoud Enquirer, on the above
^quotation:

“ These doctrines may be calculated for the meridian of Ohio — but surely
jjot of Virginia.

We shall ndt examine the opinion of Mr. Adams as to roads and canals
Only — rbutwe would throw out a few suggestions as to the main principles itself.

Mr* Adams be a fricad to a limited construction; when ho goat thus fqr fJiC

iwhole? Can one, who takes such broad ground, be considered' as of the old-
republican school of ’98 and ’99? Whatever promotes 4 their general welfare' —
whatever betters or is supposed to be the 4 means of bettering their condition’ — •
whatever* improves the condition’ of the nation— is according to him, within
the purview of the powers of the general government. Where then is the
limitation? when can we say ‘ thus far and no further?’ What cannot the federal
government do? What power is denied to them, which they may suppose cal¬
culated to better the condition of the nation?

“ Is it not enough to say, as the old republicans said, is this particular pow¬
er given — or if not given, is it the means necessary and proper, for carrying any
particular given power into execution? — but we arc now to arrive at the true
reading of the constitution by « much shorter process. We are only to ask, does
a particular power better the condition of the nation? If so, it follows of
course — and the man is 4 ineffably stupid ,’ who will not immediately admit it.
If Mr. A .is to be believed, we need no longer trouble on: selves with any en-.
quiry as to the terms on which these, separate states have associated together —
for the very object of the association cancels all limitations, and endows the
government with undefined and undefinable powers. If the United States can
do any thing to better their condition, wdiether the states have conceded the
power or not, there was no necessity for a 4 particular enumeration of powers^
in the constitution. They may establish roads and canals ad libitum — universi¬
ties, colleges and schools — in fact, w here is the limitation?

44 When the Virginia Legislature adopted Madison’s report in 1800, they
were 4 ineffably stupid.’ This * ineffably stupid,’ report demonstrated, that the
ph rase * general welfare’ was to be found in the * articles of confederation;’ arul
that the phrase ir; this very limited instrument was surely not understood * to be
either a general grant of power, or to authorise the requisition or application of
money by the old congress to the common defence and general welfare, except
in the cases afterwards enumerated which explained and limited their meaning.''

44 How 4 ineffably stupid’ was the Federalist (1st vol.) when it asked, * what
would have been thought of that assembly (the Federal Convention) if attach¬
ing themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications
which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited poweg:
of providing for the common defence and general w elfare?’

u How * ineffably stupid’-was James Madison, w hen on the 3d of March, 181Tt
he 4 was constrained by the insuperable difficulty (he felt) in reconciling (the
internal improvement) bill to the constitution of the United States, though (a
negative that bill, he admits its capacity to 4 better the condition’ of the people?

44 If these doctrines be so \ ineffably stupid,’ -we are content to abide by them.
But at least let us hear no more of John Q. Adams’ being of the Virginia school
of politicians. Can the constitution be safe in his hands? It would be a nose of
wax — moved this- way or that, as expediency might point out!”

Mr. M4Duffie, is w filing to qualify this unlimited claim of power, by con¬
fining it to those objects which can be effected by an appropriation of money ^
concerning which, the constitution, according to him, makes no limitation what¬
ever on the discretionary power of congress. The position he assumes there¬
fore, is, that congress may adopt any measure whatever, that they may deem
necessary to the “common defence and general welfare,” if money be necessary
to carry it into effect, and appropriate any sum of money 'whatever for the
purpose.

He justifies this by three cases of legislation that he thinks can be justified on
no othe; principle. Congress appropriated a sum of money for the relief of the
French emigrants from St. Domingo, w ho were compelled to take refuge here
in a very destitute condition. And they appropriated another sum, for the relief
of the sufferers by an earthquake at the Caraccas. I reply, that congress did
wot stop to enquire w hether they had an indisputable right to indulge this honor¬
able feeling, and perform these urgent acts or charity at an expense too jnsigni-
cant to be an object of debate. Neither will I.

But Mr. Jefferson, by treaty, purchased Louisiana, for “the common de¬
fence and general welfare,” and congress appropriated the money. Well; could
they avoid it? Is it not the received opinion that the house of representatives
are bound to make the appropriations necessary to carry into effect a treaty
ngree-d to by $he executiye end ratified by the senate? I express no opinion of

:ity o’.v u upon this question, but lliis, the common opinion, has uh\ ays been oete&
fjpon. At any rate, even those who deny it to be the duty of the house, agree
that there is no objection to their doing so, if they see fit. This case then, is in¬
volved essentially and forms a part of one of the powers expressly vested in,
and delegated to congress by the constitution. The abstract principle of its be¬
ing a duty, or not a duty,, was discussed, but not settled in the debates on Jay’s-
Treaty, but the right of appropriating in such a case, was never for a moment
denied then or at any time since. Mr. M'Duffie, therefore, must look out for
some other precedent equally in point, to support the stand he has taken.

In fact, 1 see no difference between Mr. J. Q. Adams’ and Mr. M‘Duftie. For
does not absolute power reside in the purse of the nation, and with him who has
absolute control over the contents? What federalist would not embrace Mr.
Adams’ proposition, with Mr. M'DuIlte’s limitation? ' If you are left at full liber¬
ty to do whatever can be done with money, what is it you cannot do? If Mr.
Monroe ami Mr. Calhoun, can place at their own disposal ten millions to be ex¬
pended in jobs for fortifications, and as much in jobs for post roads, and military

I am by no means an enemy to internal improvements, but much otherwise,
if they are executed upon some plan of equality among the respective states.
Hut no, system of expenditure is proposed, w hich shall contain the principles of
equality and equity; and a more W anton dissipation of the money of the United
States, 1 can hardly suggest, than the projected improvements in the state of
Pennsylvania. Every exercise of fisurped power, is tyranny. Every assump¬
tion of pow er by Congress, not clearly and indubitably conceded, is a fraud on
the several stales. Do you want pow er to make internal improvements? Take
the constitutional mode of obtaining it, and apply for an amendment to your
constitution. Why do you refuse so to do? Because you are in doubt whether
you can fairly and honestly convince the several states of the necessity for its
because you distrust your own cause, and dare not confide in your own
arguments.

But such is now the case, and the leading characteristic doctrine of ultra-
federalism and consolidation, is now the fashionable doctrine in congress: and
one half, at least, of the South Carolina representation are the advocates for it!
Tory many of our young politicians seem inclined to favor the pretensions of
pow er and patronage, and to enlist under the banners of ultra-federalism.

Fellow-Citizens, it is in vain to talk of an amalgamation of parties, while
the dividing line of 1797, has continued to be the dividing line from thence for¬
ward, to 1825. Is South Carolina destined to be a federal state? Do you
mean to join the ranks of that party? If you do, so be it. Things must fake
their course, and the friends of state lights must be content to remain in their
minority. If not, the politics of Mr. Adams, Mr. Calhoun and General Jackson,
are not the politics of this state; for these gentlemen supported to the utmost of
their power, a principle and a measure, which, from the very moment of party
difference, lias decidedly characterised the federal party. — Consolidation is the
motto of their Hag.

This accusation will involve some c*f the most honorable, some of the most
able, some of the most zealous, and useful sons of South Carolina. Men, who
with industry, perseverance, knowledge and ability, worthy of all praise, de¬
fended the rights of the South, against the ignorant and sel fish speculations of
the tariff-men. But it is remarkable, that neither Mr. Webster, Col. Hayne, Mr.
Foinsett, or Mr. M‘D.ui5e, advocated the rights of the South on principle. Maj.
Hamilton, of Charleston, alone, in his very able view of that question, went
into the right claimed by congress to legislate the money ol the planter, into
the coffer of the manufacturer. Yet, I see not how that gentleman could, on
principle, take the ground he so ably supported: for if congress have a right to
pass any act w hich they may deem conducive to the general w elfare, why may
they not pass an act to protect domestic and prohibit foreign manufactures?
Wliymay they not legislate on the Missouri question? In half a dozen years
Arkansa will apply to be a state: suppose Mr. John Q. Adams, elevated to the
presidency, w ith his known view s on that subject, will it not encourage the
enemies of the South to bring it up again.? Surely it W'ilJ-

15

Fellow-Citizens, it Is in vain to say tan monster party may be destroy¬
ed: people wiio honestly, and with views and intentions equally honest, differ
on principle, must ever remain two parties. There need be no animosity, be¬
cause going both of us to the same point C. you prefer the road A. and l think
better of the road 3. Still the difference of opinion must and will remain; nor
do I believe the country would gain much by amalgamation. It is well for both
of us to be watched.

The question here discussed is a very leading and important one. The ten¬
dency to consolidating opinions among all our young politicians, is manifest: the
road to hereditary office is breaking upon the view, and monarchy is dimly
seen at the end of the vista.

I close these remarks; submitting them, under the sanction of the following
opinions on the subject, by James Madison, our former president.

Proceedings in ike Virginia Assembly, passed in December , 1758, with Iht rcticuf
of the committee thereon, presented Tuesday, January 7, 1800. *

The other questions presenting themselves, are — 1. Whether indications
have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases copied from the
♦'•articles of confederation,” so as to destroy the effect of the particular emuner-
ation explaining nud limiting their meaning. 2. Whether this exposition would
by degrees consolidate the states into one sovereignty. 3. Whether the tenden¬
cy and result of this consolidation would be to transform the Republican system
of the United States into a monarchy.

1. The general phrases here meant must be those “of providing for the
common defence and general welfare.”

In the “articles of confederation” the phrases are used as follows, In article
VIII. “AH charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for Ike-
common defence and general welfare , and allowed by the United States in con¬
gress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be
supplied by the several states, in proportion to the value of all land within each
state, granted to or surveyed for any person, as sue!: 'land and the buildings and
Improvements thereon shall be estimated, according to such inode as the United
States in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.”

In the existing constitution, they make the following part of section 8.
“The congress shall have power, to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and
excises to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general wel¬
fare of the United States.”

This similarity in the use of these phrases in the two great federal charters,
might well be considered, as rendering their meaning less liable to be miscon¬
strued in the latter; because it will scarcely be said that in the former they were
ever understood to be either a general grant or power, or to authorise the requi¬
sition or application of money by the old congress to the common defence and
general welfare, except in the eases afterwards enumerated which explained and
limited their meaning; and if such was tiie limited meaning attached to these
phrases in the very instrument revised and remodelled by the present constitu¬
tion, it can never be supposed that when copied into this constitution, a different
meaning ought to be attached to them.

That notwithstanding this remarkable security against misconstruction, a
design has been indicated to expound these phrases in the constitution so as to
destroy the effect of the particular enumeration of powers by which it explains
and limits them, must have fallen under the observation of these who have at¬
tended to the course of public transactions. Not to multiply pi-oofs on this sub¬
ject, it will suffice to refer to the debates in the Federal Legislature, in which ar¬
guments have on different occasions been drawn, with apparent effect, from
these phrases in their indefinite meaning.

To these indications might be added, without looking farther, the official re¬
port on manufactures by the late Secretary of the Treasury, made on the 5th of
December, 1791; and the report of a committee of Congress in January 1797,
on the promotion of agriculture. In the first of these, it is expressly contended
to belong “to the discretion of the National legislature to pronounce upon the

* See also to the same purpose, Mr . Madison' s paper in The Federalist, on
puhlic welfare, Mo. 23, Mo. 41; and on construction Mo. 33.

objects which concern the general welfare , and for which, under that description',
aii appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to he no-
room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of
agriculture, of manufa darts, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the na*
lional councils, ns far as regards an application of man- yC The latter report
assumes the same latitude of power in the national councils, and applies it id
{he encouragement of agriculture, by means of a society to be established at the
Seat of government. Although neither of these reports may have received the
sanction of a law carrying it into effect, yet, on the oilier hand, the extraordi¬
nary doctrine contained in both, has passed without the slightest positive mark
of disapprobation from the authority to which it was addressed. (Congress.)

Now whether t!ic phrases in question be construed to authorise every meas¬
ure relating to the common defence and general welfare, as contended by some;*
or every measure only in which there might be an application of money, as sug¬
gested by the caution of others,! the effect must substantially be the same, in des¬
troying the import and force of the particular enumeration of powers, which
follow these general phrases in the constitution. For it is evident that there is
not a single power whatever, which may not have some reference to the common
defence, or the general welfare; nor a power of any magnitude which in its ex¬
ercise does not involve or admit an application of money. The government
therefore which possesses power in either one or other of these extents, is a gov¬
ernment without the limitations formed by a particular enumeration of powers;
and consequently the meaning and etfect of this particular enumeration, is des¬
troyed by the exposition given to these general phrases.

This conclusion will not be effected by an attempt to qualify the power over
the “general welfare/’ by referring it to cases where the general welfare is be¬
yond the reach of separate provisions by the individual stales; and leaving to
these their jurisdictions in cases, to which their separate provisions may be com¬
petent. For as the authority of the individual states must in all cases be incom¬
petent to general regulations operating through the whole, the authority of the
United States would be extended to every object relating to the general welfare,
which might by any possibility be provided for by the general authority. This
qualifying construction therefore would have little, if any tendency, to circum¬
scribe the power claimed under the latitude of the terms “general welfare.”

The true and fair construction of this expression, both in the original and
existing federal compacts, appears to the committee too obvious to be mistaken.
In both, the congress is authorized to provide moneffor ihc common defence and
general welfare. Iri both, is subjoined to this authority, an enumeration
of the cases, to which their powers shall extend. Money cannot be ap¬
plied to the general ivclfare, other, visethan by an application of it to
gome particular measure conducive to the general welfare. Whenever there*
fore, money has been raised by the general authority, and is to be applied
to a particular measure, a question arises, whether the particular mea¬
sure be within the enumeratedaulhorities vested in Congress. If it be.,
the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application
can be made. This fair and obvious interpretation coincides with, and is en¬
forced by, the clause in the Constitution which declares that “no money shall
be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations by law.” An
appropriation of money to the general welfare, would be deemed rather a mock¬
ery than an observance of this Constitutional injunction.

2. Whether the exposition of the general phrases here combated, would not,
by deg rees consolidate the states into one sovereignty, is a question concerning
which, the committee can perceive little room for difference of opinion To
consolidate the states into one sovereignty, nothing more can be wanted, than
to supercede their respective sovereignties in the cases reserved to them, by
extending the sovereignty of the United States to all cases of the “general web
fare,” that is to say, to all cases whatever.

3. That the obvious tendency and inevitable result of a consolidation of
{he states into one sovereignty, would be, to transform the republican system of
the United States into a monarchy, is a point which seems to have been suffi¬
ciently decided by the general sentiment of America. In almost every instance
% 1

* John Q. Adams's position, t Mr. McDuffie's position.

of discussion, relating to the consolidation in question, its certain tendency to
pave the way to monarchy, seems not to have been contested. The prospect of
such a consolidation has formed the only topic of controversy. It would be un¬
necessary therefore, for the committee to dwell long on the reasons which
support the position of the General Assembly. It may not be improper, how-t
ever, to remark two consequences evidently flowing ti;oin an extension of the
federal powers to every subject falling within the idea of the “general welfare."

One consequence must be, to enlarge the sphere of discretion allotted to
the executive magistrate. Even within the legislative limits properly defined
by the Constitution, the difficulty of accommodating legal regulations to a coun¬
try so great in extent, and so various in its circumstances, has been much felt)
and has led to occasional investments of power in the executive, which involve
perhaps as flarge a portion of discretion, as can be deemed consistent with the
nature of the executive trust. In proportion as the objects of legislative care
might be multiplied, would the time allowed for each be diminished, and tho
difficulty of providing uniform and particular regulations for all, be increased,
-From these sources would necessarily ensue, a greater latitude to the agency of
that department which is always in existence, and which could best mould regu¬
lations of a general nature, so as to suit them to the diversity of particular situa¬
tions. And it is in this latitude, as a supplement to the deficiency of the laws,
that the degree of prerogative materially consists.

The other consequence would be, that of an excessive augmentation of the
'offices, honours and emoluments depending on the executive will. Add to the
present legitimate flock, all those of every description which a consolidation of -
the states would take from them, and turn over to the federal government, and
the patronage of the executive would necessarily be as much swelled in this
case, as its prerogative would be in the other.

This disproportionate increase of prerogative and patronage must, evidently,
either enable'the chief magistrate of the union, by quiet means, to secure his re-
election from time to time, and finally, to regulate the succession as he might
please; or, by giving so transcendent an importance to the office, would render
tire elections to it so violent and corrupt, that the public voice itself might call for
an hereditary, in place of an elective succession. Which ever of these events
might follow, the transformation of the Republican system of the United States
into a monarchy, anticipated by the General Assembly from a consolidation of
the states into one sovereignty, would be equally accomplished; and whether if
would be into a mixt or an absolute monarchy, might depend on too many con¬
tingencies to admit of any certain foresight. So far Mr. Madison.

Upon the whole, it appears, that the Convention of 1787, who framed our
present Constitution, were of the politics now sneered at as radical : that our
present constitution is radical in all its principles, that our oldest and best tried
politicians were, and are radicals in their politics; attempting so far as they could
foresee, to lay the axe to the root of all useless expense, and of all constructive
usurpation: averse to all measures that might tempt us to engage in national quar¬
rels, which could be prudently and honorably avoided. They were no friends
to magnificent, expensive and dazzling forms and principles of government; to
governments aiming at extensive patronage; to needless grants of power; or of
money, which is synonimous with power; being well persuaded that the differ¬
ence between a good and bad government is, that the last is expensive beyond
necessity, while frugality without parsimony, is the characteristic of the former.
The principle is universally true, that the cheaper we can purchase what we
really want, and the less we expend on what we do not want, the greater surplus
remains at our disposal; whether we apply it to a form of government, or a yard
of muslin.

Such are the political tenets of (he men who are stigmatized as “penny
wise and pound foolish” - , of Anti-Federalists, Republicans, Democrats,

or not. let the people judge.